LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a diploma in Art and Craft obtained through distance education from Kurukshetra University is equivalent to a diploma awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department for the purpose of appointment as an Arts and Crafts teacher.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Devender Bhaskar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 24 November 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 750
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can a university-issued diploma through distance education be considered equivalent to a state-recognized diploma for government job eligibility? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent service law case, focusing on the appointment of Arts and Crafts teachers in Haryana. This case examines whether a diploma in Art and Craft obtained through distance education from Kurukshetra University is equivalent to the diploma awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The dispute arose from an advertisement (No. 6/2006) issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 20 July 2006, for 816 posts of Arts and Crafts teachers. The eligibility criteria included a matriculation from the Haryana School Education Board, a two-year diploma in Art and Craft from the Haryana Industrial Training Department, or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department. Several candidates who possessed a two-year diploma in Art and Craft from Kurukshetra University through distance education applied for these positions. However, their applications were rejected on the grounds that their diplomas were not recognized as equivalent by the Haryana Education Department. These candidates then filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20 July 2006 | Haryana Staff Selection Commission issues advertisement No. 6/2006 for 816 Arts and Crafts teacher posts. |
| 2003-2004 | Kurukshetra University starts a 2-year Art & Craft Course through distance education. |
| 27 November 2003 | Meeting held by Haryana’s Industrial Training & Vocational Education Department to discuss Kurukshetra University’s Art & Craft course. |
| 24 November 2003 | Director of Industrial Training & Vocational Education Department, Haryana, clarifies that the diploma course in Art and Craft by Kurukshetra University is not recognized by the Education Department. |
| 24 December 2004 | Kurukshetra University clarifies that its diploma in Art and Craft does not guarantee any specific job. |
| 12 December 2006 | Director of School Education, Haryana, issues a letter stating that only diplomas from the Industrial Training Department are recognized. |
| 22 February 2007 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana allows the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners have a right to be considered. |
| 24 November 2021 | Supreme Court of India allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners had a legal right to be considered for the Arts and Crafts teacher posts based on their diplomas from Kurukshetra University. The High Court held that the diploma secured by them from the Kurukshetra University is valid for the post of Arts and Crafts teachers. This decision was challenged by the private respondents (original respondents in the writ petitions) before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the eligibility criteria set by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s advertisement. The advertisement required a two-year diploma in Art and Craft from the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department. The key legal question is whether the diploma from Kurukshetra University through distance education can be considered an ‘equivalent qualification’.
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellants (Private Respondents in the Writ Petitions):
- The diploma in Art and Craft from Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department.
- The diploma from the Industrial Training Department is awarded to students who attend regular classroom teaching, which is crucial for practical subjects.
- The diploma from Kurukshetra University is only for enhancing academic qualification and is not recognized for teacher training.
- Equivalence is a technical matter, and the court should not interfere with the expert’s view.
Arguments of the Respondent-State of Haryana:
- Supported the arguments of the appellants, stating that the diploma from Kurukshetra University is not equivalent.
Arguments of the Writ Petitioners-Respondents:
- Kurukshetra University is established under the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986, and its qualifications are recognized for central government jobs.
- The Haryana government has repeatedly confirmed the two-year diploma in Art and Craft from Kurukshetra University.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Diploma Equivalency |
|
Appellants (Private Respondents) |
| Diploma Equivalency |
|
Respondent-State of Haryana |
| Diploma Equivalency |
|
Writ Petitioners-Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the diploma in Art and Craft from Kurukshetra University through distance education is recognized by the Haryana Education Department as an equivalent qualification to the diploma in Art and Craft Examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the diploma in Art and Craft from Kurukshetra University through distance education is recognized by the Haryana Education Department as an equivalent qualification to the diploma in Art and Craft Examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. | No. The Court held that the diploma from Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department. | The Court emphasized that the Art and Craft course is highly practical, requiring regular classroom teaching, unlike the distance education course offered by Kurukshetra University. The court also deferred to the expert opinion of the Haryana Education Department. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors [1975] 3 SCC 76 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter to be decided by experts, and courts should not interfere unless the decision is irrational or mala fide. |
| J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others [1990] 1 SCC 288 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Courts should not consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. |
| State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun [2002] 6 SCC 252 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The appropriate authority should decide eligibility qualifications for admission or recruitment, not the courts. |
| Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr. [2009] 1 SCC 610 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Equivalence is a technical academic matter and cannot be implied or assumed. It requires a specific order or resolution. |
| Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. [2019] 2 SCC 404 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The State, as an employer, can prescribe qualifications, and judicial review cannot expand the scope of those qualifications. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Diploma from Kurukshetra University is equivalent to the diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department. | Rejected. The Court held that the diploma from Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department. |
| The diploma from Kurukshetra University is recognized for Central Government jobs. | Acknowledged, but the Court clarified that recognition for Central Government jobs does not automatically equate to recognition by the Haryana Education Department. |
| The Haryana Government has repeatedly confirmed the two-year diploma in Art and Craft from Kurukshetra University. | The Court noted that while the Haryana Government had issued some communications, none of them stated that the diploma was equivalent to the one issued by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors [1975] 3 SCC 76* to emphasize that equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter to be decided by experts, and courts should not interfere unless the decision is irrational or mala fide.
- The Court cited J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others [1990] 1 SCC 288* to support the view that courts should not consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts.
- The Court referred to State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun [2002] 6 SCC 252* to reiterate that the appropriate authority should decide eligibility qualifications for admission or recruitment, not the courts.
- The Court followed Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr. [2009] 1 SCC 610* to reiterate that equivalence is a technical academic matter and cannot be implied or assumed. It requires a specific order or resolution.
- The Court relied on Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. [2019] 2 SCC 404* to hold that the State, as an employer, can prescribe qualifications, and judicial review cannot expand the scope of those qualifications.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the technical nature of the Art and Craft course and the importance of practical training. The Court emphasized that the diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department involves regular classroom teaching, which is crucial for practical subjects. The Court also highlighted the fact that the Kurukshetra University itself had clarified that its diploma in Art and Craft was not meant for appointment as Arts and Crafts teachers. The court deferred to the expert opinion of the Haryana Education Department, which had determined that the two diplomas were not equivalent.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Technical Nature of the Course | 30% |
| Importance of Practical Training | 30% |
| Expert Opinion of Haryana Education Department | 25% |
| Kurukshetra University’s Clarification | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court observed that, “The materials on record clearly suggest that the Art and Craft Course is a highly practical oriented course and the appointee teachers have to train the students in Art and Craft which is a practical subject.” The Court further noted, “The Kurukshetra University grants the diploma in Art and Craft through distance education. This diploma cannot be equated with the diploma given through regular class room studies.” and also clarified that, “Recognition of the said Course by the State of Haryana, as held by the High Court, is entirely different from its equivalence.”
The Court also considered the fact that the Kurukshetra University itself had clarified that the diploma was not meant for appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts Teachers. The Court stated, “In fact, Kurukshetra University has never claimed that the aforementioned diploma is valid for appointment of Arts and Crafts Teachers.”
The Supreme Court did not find any alternative interpretations that would support the equivalence of the two diplomas. The Court emphasized the importance of the expert opinion of the Haryana Education Department and the practical nature of the Art and Craft course, leading to the final decision that the diplomas were not equivalent.
Key Takeaways
- Equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter to be decided by experts.
- Courts should not interfere with expert decisions unless they are irrational or mala fide.
- The State, as an employer, has the right to prescribe qualifications for its posts.
- Distance education diplomas may not be considered equivalent to regular classroom diplomas for certain job requirements, especially in practical fields.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions. There were no specific directions given by the Supreme Court apart from setting aside the High Court order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter to be decided by experts, and courts should not interfere unless the decision is irrational or mala fide. This judgment reinforces the principle that the State, as an employer, has the right to prescribe qualifications for its posts, and distance education diplomas may not always be considered equivalent to regular classroom diplomas, especially in practical fields. There is no change in the previous position of law but this case re-emphasizes the existing principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Devender Bhaskar vs. State of Haryana upholds the State’s decision that a diploma in Art and Craft obtained through distance education from Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to a diploma awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department for the purpose of appointment as an Arts and Crafts teacher. The Court emphasized the technical nature of the course, the importance of practical training, and the expert opinion of the Haryana Education Department. This decision reinforces the principle that equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter to be decided by experts, and courts should not interfere unless the decision is irrational or mala fide.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Equivalence of Educational Qualifications
Child Category: Haryana Staff Selection Commission
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Haryana Industrial Training Department
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Kurukshetra University
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Distance Education
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Devender Bhaskar vs. State of Haryana case?
A: The main issue was whether a diploma in Art and Craft obtained through distance education from Kurukshetra University is equivalent to a diploma awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department for the purpose of appointment as an Arts and Crafts teacher.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the diploma from Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department for the purpose of appointment as an Arts and Crafts teacher.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court rule that the diplomas were not equivalent?
A: The Court emphasized that the Art and Craft course is highly practical and requires regular classroom teaching, unlike the distance education course offered by Kurukshetra University. The Court also deferred to the expert opinion of the Haryana Education Department.
Q: What does this judgment mean for people with distance education diplomas?
A: This judgment highlights that distance education diplomas may not always be considered equivalent to regular classroom diplomas for certain job requirements, especially in practical fields. It underscores the importance of expert opinions in determining equivalency.
Q: Can courts interfere in matters of educational equivalency?
A: The Supreme Court held that courts should not interfere in matters of educational equivalency unless the decision is irrational or mala fide. These matters are best left to experts in the field.